Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 567 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 2.0.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.6, updated 2026-09-29.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Paywall blocks the basics
Stay away from this app, they make you pay for a subscription only to take features away and you're left paying the same price. I am subscribed to the platinum subscription monthly, and I'm supposed to get permanent memory included but…
Now you have to pay for an more adult conversation. It is a great app if that is what you're looking for
can't do anything without paying exorbitant subscription fees
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This app had ALOT of promise and then it didn't. A great deal of false advertising and poor communication. When I say poor communication, I mean ZERO communication. The filter is broken. There is no rhyme or reason why certain creations…
This is just another money grabbing app! Advertised as free, but subscription needed to see AI created pictures! In other words: a scam! I just changed my rating from one star to five. I spend more time in this app than I probably should…
started off great, believing that this is ai chat and talking to a machine. accepted the hiccups where the ai forgot things or changed the environment just have to be brought back to the way. you wanted it to run. on one chat got very…
Aggressive ad load
Completely unlike the ads for the app. Charging for use after 5 minutes of use and hit with as many ads. Here's a hint on what it takes for a successful app; make it enjoyable for the user. That's all. But in just 5 minutes you managed to…
Characters are great, stories are amazing, but once you try to open a character ai, you immediately get a 30 second pop-up ad that doesn't allow skipping, and lack of trending animes and fandoms that would boost up the app if possible. I…
a lot of commercials and the fact the matter is if you're making me watch a commercial every three or four minutes and I've got to pay for it that's a little ridiculous
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.